Re: ADMS high level comments

Hi James,

>> (3) The one thing that you do need with semantic assets, that you many not need elsewhere, is information on closure. You need to be able to state that some particular enumeration of codes in a codelist is complete and that a code not listed there is invalid. Is this use case supposed to be supported by ADMS?
>> I see that you can represent hierarchical containment of assets through adms:includedAsset but there's nothing about closure or completeness either as guidelines in the document or as a metadata term.
> Wouldn't you need some OWL for that? e.g. owl:oneOf for your "code not listed there is invalid" case. ADMS wants to be technology-neutral, so not sure how that sort of axiom is generally described in such documents. I assume users of ADMS could add these sorts of axioms, and that ADMS need not define any itself. It's possible not all users of ADMS will want the same axioms.

If I understood Dave's comments correctly, then yes, you would need
OWL express such a construct. For example, you might have a controlled
vocabulary for interoperability levels:

adms:interoperabilityLevel rdfs:range skos:Concept, [
  a owl:Restriction ;
  owl:onProperty skos:inScheme ;
  owl:hasValue ex:interoperabilityLevels
] .

However, I'm not too concerned about using OWL, since the ADMS already
uses it, albeit sparingly. If you dereference ADMS's namespace [1],
you'll see that ADMS is typed as an OWL ontology, i.e.:

<> a owl:Ontology.

Sure, adding OWL constructs, such as this one trades the ease of
processing for a more formal specification. I think it's up to ADMS's
creator to decide whether it's worth adding more OWL to the




Jindrich Mynarz

Received on Friday, 12 October 2012 07:36:04 UTC